In class, when we discussed the John Henry Legend, the point was brought up that did it matter if john henry was real or not? I thought about this, and I have come to the conclusion, that no, I really don't think that it matters that he is real.
I think he is kind of the "ideal worker," like we have the "ideal male nude" in the art world. I think he is the personification of the ideal male worker for the time. That he is not one man, he is a little of every man. He lives in every man's spirit. He is the compilation of the best traits of man: dedicated, hardworking, intelligent, loving, faithful,... the list goes on.
It is more important to tell the story, and learn from the story than to get caught up in the details. The story is about man versus the machine; this fight is never ending. It will always be man versus the machine. It will just be different men and different machines. The reader or listener should learn from John Henry to stand up for what you think is right, work hard because you will be remembered for it, and that man can win the battle against the machine.
Another point was discussed: is it important that he died at the end? Or would the story have been just as successful if he lived? I think it is important for the story that he died because it is the ultimate sacrifice. He worked so hard that it killed him. I also think it made him more of a hero. If he would have beat the machine and lived, I think people would have forgotten about him. But because he died he will always be remembered for his sacrifice.
In my opinion, John Henry is just a legend. He embodied too many heroic traits, I believe, to possibly be real. But that is okay. It is more important that people believe in his spirit than in his existence.
Reading the Native American Oral Literature passed down from generation to generation was interesting. It is neat to see the differences between cultures. But what fascinates me the most, with any culture, is that people feel the need to explain things. People need to explain why they are alive, where they came from, why they die, etc. And I don't know if I will ever understand why. I have never needed to "know" what my purpose is, I am just here. And when I die, I die. People ask me what I live for, I live for myself. I want to do well for me. But I understand that most people need something to believe in to go on, and I respect their decisions.
The native american oral literature reminds me of the stories we all are told when we were younger. They are so similar. Both stories give an explaination for man's struggle.
It is interesting to see that everyone questions who they are and where they come from. I wonder how the stories are so similar though, they are almost exactly alike, yet the people are so different, and did not meet until centuries after the creation. I wonder what the Native American creation story was before they met the white man? Because was there any way for the Native American to know that the white man existed? I wonder if the white man "part" was added later? And whose story came first, the Ntive Americans' or the white mans'?
People as a whole think that one race is so different from another, yet when I think about things like this, I wonder how different we really are. It seems that everyone wants to have a purpose in life, a purpose for their existence. It's too bad we can't see past all of the small, unimportant differences between us to the huge similarities that make up us all.
I really enjoyed reading "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce. It came at a good time in the semester, right between two novels. I liked its setup: how it was arranged into definitions rather than paragraphs; it made it easier to read because I could read small sections over a longer course of time rather than all at once.
I appreciate his different approach to writing: instead of writing a long, boring paper on what he thinks is wrong with society and his suggestions on how to improve it, he simply defines words. Most of the words he defines have to do with stereotypes, misconceptions, and problems with society as a whole. He makes his opinions known in a very economic composition. He uses just enough details to get his point across, yet it is successful.
I just want to mention my reaction to the presentations given on "The Devil's Dictionary." Many of the women presenters claimed that this writing is sexist. I just feel like sometimes women bring a lot on themselves. Women today seem to blame everything on men, but most of the time the women are to blame. I think we need to get over all of our "hang-ups" and accept who we are, in order for men to accept who we are. Just because the author defined a few words relating to females does not mean that he is sexist. It may be his opinion of society at the time, he may be trying to get people to notice their biases, or maybe he is sexist. SO WHAT? Be the stronger person. So what if he is sexist? So what if anyone is sexist? Prove them wrong. Work your ass off. Show them that women are strong, intelligent, and just as "good" as men are. And for the most part, I would say the men in our class, and the men at SHU as a whole, are some of the LEAST sexist men we will ever meet. I just wish people would look at other things then gender roles, I get sick of hearing it over and over again.
"The Girl of the Golden West" is a play written by David Belasco. The play is set in Cloudy Mountain, California during the Gold Rush. The center of the story is the Polka Saloon, owned by Minnie, or "The Girl." There are many frequent customers to the saloon, and a few of them are Sonora, Rance, Trinidad, Billy Jackrabbit, Handsome Charlie, and Happy Halliday.
The aspect of the play I want to discuss is the movement and action that takes place in the bar. The action seems to keep the story moving along, and seems to bring all the characters together.
There is always someone new entering the bar. I think all the movement keeps the reader interested. There are bar fights, shots fired, people yelling, people singing; it is an action-packed place. When a new character is about to enter, the action seems to slow for a minute. This seems to give the audience time to focus on each character and their role in the story. When Jake, a musician, is heard by singing in the distance, all the characters quiet down and listen, therefore the audience knows that a new character is being introduced. When he enters, everyone turns their attention to Jake and cheer for him. When The Girl enters, Rance, the sheriff, is just about to shoot Sonora, but he stops and cheers for The Girl instead. Everyone stops as she enters. When The Girl and Johnson, a stranger, are talking, notice that everyone is gone. This is the intent, the action of the story took all of the other characters offstage so that the audience could focus on the relationship between thes two characters.
As a review, I think that the actions in the play serve as motivation to keep the play moving along, to introduce new characters, and to focus on individual characters.
Any other ideas on what the action in the play is used for?
Do you think all the action/movement is distracting?